memory_betafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Captainmike/archive 2012
user talk:captainmike/archive 2007 user talk:captainmike/archive 2008 user talk:captainmike/archive 2009 user talk:captainmike/archive 2010 user talk:captainmike/archive 2011 user talk:captainmike/archive 2012 ---- stars/star systems Mike, what exactly is the policy towards stars and star systems as to naming of articles?--Long Live the United Earth 02:41, January 6, 2012 (UTC) :Not sure if we've codified any actual policy, but SOP (standard operating procedure) has been to use the most basic name (with no suffix or disambiguant) whenever possible... and add "_system" for systems, and, when star arity is known, to add "_(star)" for single stars with "_system" as redirect to that. for binaries and other multiple stars, the suffix "_system" always suffices (when disambiguation is required)... - Captain MKB 03:40, January 6, 2012 (UTC) ::just to go on to complete categorization: ::* a single star with no known planets or orbiting bodies, and no companion stars = category: "stars" ::* referring specifically to a single star with companion stars (binary, trinary, etc) = category: "stars" ::* a single star with no other companion star and a system of at least one orbiting body = categories: "stars" and "star systems" ::* referring to the multiple/binary star system as a whole, not referring to any single star component = categories: "star systems" and "binary (or whichever) star systems" ::* referring to any star system as a whole, with an unknown quantity of whether or not it is a single star or a multiple = category: "star systems" :: -- Captain MKB 17:42, January 6, 2012 (UTC) Sound good Mike, I know you went through and corrected everything so I wanted to make sure I knew what was going on. Thanks!--Long Live the United Earth 06:18, January 8, 2012 (UTC) M'Benga Thank you with the help with the article, Mike. I've been away for a while and I'm just getting used to how everything works again, so bear with me. --The Doctor 17:47, January 13, 2012 (UTC) :No problem, Doc - everything you did looked spot on. I expanded some - and enacted a somewhat newer manner of subsectioning based on previous discussions regarding divergent continuities. Hopefully, it is sufficient for the mirror universe purists who began that discussion. -- Captain MKB 18:12, January 13, 2012 (UTC) U.S.S. Spirit NX-79995 I've noticed that this ship isn't included in this wiki nor in memory-alpha. It is featured in Ships of the Line calendar of 2009. Why isnt it featured here?--Tempest Wing 05:03, January 14, 2012 (UTC) "In the year"? Mike, why are you adding "the year" to any information using a date? It's rather redundant as there is already a link to the year the event happens in. Additionally, it's rather unwieldy to read (or say for that matter) "in the year 2155" as opposed to "in 2155." Additionally I saw that you added decade on one page so it read "in the 2150s decade." That is even more unwieldy and unneeded that the year one. I realize that our goal is to link our articles together, but not at the expense of readability. So, why're you adding in unnecessary and unwieldy links?--Long Live the United Earth 18:02, January 25, 2012 (UTC) :Just trying to be descriptive. As the numbers get higher, readers might not recognize it as a year -- editors of other media for years have taken this kind of step to clarify. A lot of standard literature will use some sort of descriptive prefix or suffix to establish that a number in question is in fact a year. When someone says "In 5700" or "in 867539", an inhabitant on the 1990s doesnt automatically think of these as years (as opposed to stardates, or even simply numbered locations) :I don't agree with you that they are unnecessary or unwieldy, sorry. A lot of the writing i see on certain wikis is impossibly simplistic, even in terms of basic statements that don't have complete thoughts or use so many pronouns and vague declarations improperly connecting incomplete clauses—to the point where no one knows what is being said. -- Captain MKB 18:13, January 25, 2012 (UTC) ::I must admit I found it rather unwieldy at first, but it could be worst we could put "in the year of our lord 2156". :D However, I buy Mike's reasoning about clarity and happily towing the line as it were. Another one that used to annoy me was "in December of 2376" when in December 2376 would do, but I go with the policy, because its only going to be reedited again anyone so you might as well save the hassle. Then again, I'm just a confused working class Brit and leave all grammatical what-nots to those in the know. --The Doctor 18:30, January 25, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, I could do without the "of" in that case, but I might be guilty of unwieldification of such things. The "in the year" thing is one of those things i might do at the first occurrence of a numbered year in an article, and then not repeat throughout. And yes, when Green Lantern's editors looked at the 5700 storyline, way back in the 60s, they changed it to "5700 AD" because otherwise, people had to guess the number was a year. -- Captain MKB 18:34, January 25, 2012 (UTC) First, ley me apologize if I seemed rude in my first post, I was being kinda grouchy and I'm sorry. :/ Anyway, I don't neccesarily agree that readers are going to have a problem knowing a year is a year when they live in the 2000s and most dates are in the 2000s as well. (though if we do have something in 5700 I could see clarifying that was a year and not a stardate)--Long Live the United Earth 20:22, January 25, 2012 (UTC) :I can certainly see that Mike's suggestion with regards to the year makes a lot of sense. I'm not so sure about the decade thing because that does seem a little clunky to me. But, of course, I will go with the concensus. --The Doctor 20:28, January 25, 2012 (UTC) :::I don't care either way on the "year" thing personally, but the "decade" one is really awkward. To my mind, if the sentence cannot be read aloud easily, then it needs to be reworked. I don't know a better solution that does include the word "decade", but the common English language practice and usage for listing a decade is to list the years such as "2250s". Otherwise, it would be the "sixth decade of the 23rd century," and that's just way clunkier. :) -- sulfur 20:42, January 25, 2012 (UTC) :I think most people can determine from context when a four-digit number is a year, at least within a range like 1100–2999, and especially in the modern and Trek eras. It's really only necessary to differentiate older or later dates from stardates (and we always say "stardate 1234" anyway). Eh, "in the year 2155" is fussy but not incorrect. I wouldn't bother myself, but won't stop Mike from trying. :p Although it may be clearer to readers who don't have English as a first language, which is a worthwhile goal. :But that "in the 2370s decade" construction is very cumbersome: "2370s" is plural, but "decade" singular. Compare it with "in the 2375 year": same construction, just as awkward, suggesting it should "in the 2375th year". Is it incorrect? If we think of 2370s as a list of numbers, then yes. But if we think of them as a name for this set of years... Let's call it War, for example, so we get "in the War decade" — that works. So "in the 2370s decade" isn't entirely wrong, but neither is it entirely right. We're going to naturally think of them as a set of numbers rather than a name. :Other ways of putting it are "in the decade of the 2370s" (very long), "in the 2370s years" (ugh), or "in the years 2370–2379" (has merit, but implies a range rather than some point within). In the end, with technical editor hat on, I'd have to recommend "in the decade of the 2370s" as the most natural, correct and non-ambiguous way of putting it. Or simply "in the 2370s", of course. -- BadCatMan 02:04, January 26, 2012 (UTC) Please see this Please read this. -- sulfur 01:43, January 28, 2012 (UTC) :Already responded, thanks --- Captain MKB 01:45, January 28, 2012 (UTC) Disambigs suggestion I put together a suggestion for a small change to the way that we deal with disambiguating pages here, and I'd like to hear your input if you have any. -- sulfur 20:07, February 5, 2012 (UTC) Palmer FYI, "Palmer" the Ambassador is currently at "Palmer (ambassador)". I've fixed links so that they all point to the same place. If we choose to move this to "Ambassador" later, a bot can easily fix these links (same goes for things like "X (ensign)" -> "X (Ensign)", etc. -- sulfur 15:49, February 8, 2012 (UTC) This thing Captainmike, we've reached a point where I feel I have to say something. We've thanked and congratulated each other's work in the past, where I found you to be a respectful and reasonable person. But now, I'm just not comfortable with the attitude you present, not just to me, but to others as well. Your responses can be curt or patronising to the point of rudeness. On complex issues, you seize one side (even the wrong one) and argue it obstinately, apparently without conducting sufficient research into the topic, and often refusing to address alternative points, as though ignoring them. Then you make sweeping changes without waiting for discussion or resolution. It's been the same pattern with Talk:New Paris, Talk:Khesterex, and now Talk: Orion system, and so on. In these areas, I feel almost singled out as a target by you. These are the same problems brought up by many other users back in the Forum:An Open Letter to the Memory Beta Community dust-up. I was new and didn't understand it then, but I really understand it now. Clearly, this is still a problem. If by some remote chance I've offended you, please let me know. I don't want to get involved in politics or conflicts with you, I just want to write articles. Otherwise, please show me and everyone else here the respect and consideration we've tried to show you. -- BadCatMan 06:32, February 15, 2012 (UTC) :You're a solid editor, no disrespect intended. I've got no problem with you, but I -do- feel like you tend to lose sight of the big picture when someone has something to say to you. You're very focused on the Orion articles, and I am concerned that you don't see past that when we run into a conflict. The recent article was a complete mismatch with the name, but you're unable to take the simple criticism that you performed an improper move. I don't intend to disrespect you in any way, but you got defensive in the first line of your reply and needed to chill out. It colored the conversation. You're usually a sharp cookie on things like this--I had to back off of the Klingon situation because it took a bit for it to sink in that you'd read up a little more recently than I and were coming across with solid facts that I was unaware of. Don't take it as antagonism that I disagreed with you, and then found out you had more knowledge than I. :I'm not this wiki's chief "play-well-with-others" admin, I tell it like it is. Sometimes i'm wrong, but that why we have the discussions. It's not about you, I'm just trying to get through things with a minimum of discussion. I've nominated other admins from our crowd of "technical" editors so we almost entirely focus on nuts and bolts, and nobody's really stepped up as a 'goodwill ambassador' in cases like this. I apologize, we could use one. I know that other admins -are- taking steps to tone up their interactions to make sure we don't all have attitudes. I've seen one of our other admins sass the hell out of people on other wikia, but here he is more reserved because he probably knows that my sass and his sass would over-sass the wiki. It's not about you. :You haven't offended me by having these discussions in the past and I apologize if you feel like the friction is about you. :In terms of the open letter, that is old and forgotten. It -does- offend me that you bring it up. It's bullshit, it's past, and no one fucking cares about what last year's vandal attack has to say about me. Forget it, I have. Wikia central contacted me regarding the situation and basically told me i need to ban people more often - those who get that overly hostile and personal like that. I took it as a good time for a fresh start when the parties involved grew up a little and got off the wiki without anyone having to take such drastic actions. -- Captain MKB 14:22, February 15, 2012 (UTC) ::I disagree that my first line there was defensive. I phrased and rephrased to make it as non-confrontational as possible, but tone doesn't carry well online without a lot of lame smileys. :-) You raised a problem, I was about to write a response to explain my reasoning, then discovered you'd already renamed it and began cutting bits out, which I found annoying, a seeming lack of interest in actually discussing it. Especially when I'd very recently made some edits and you might expect me to be online for a swift response. I tried to politely point this out, then continued. Your statements, like "Listen, I corrected a problem, this article never...", "Period. No amount of outrage on your part", bolded text, and trying to tell me what a star system is came off as aggressive and patronising, which is where I had a problem with you. If I sounded defensive, it was because you sounded offensive. ::I also disagree that I couldn't take criticism here. Beyond repeating your system/planet confusion and stressing Pi-3 Orionis, you weren't clear on what the problem actually was. I'' had to discover and point out my own mistakes regarding the ordering of the introductory sentence and the categories that I felt really screwed it up. I tried to explain my reasoning on the potential Rigel connection (why this might not be Pi-3) and my intent to develop a system page, but you never really acknowledged these points, so both of us just said the same damn things over and over. ::I run an online community myself and have often had to moderate disputes between users over one thing or another. And you know what, I hate having to do it. I'm sure you'd feel the same way. (I do believe you're very first person to respond reasonably, so cudos. :) ) In this sense, I feel like a patient and experienced diplomat, and I'll step away a day to think a response over and deliver it calmly. I'll also take the opportunity to admit that I'm territorial over my pet subjects ("No! I wanted to do some ''Doctor Who pages!"), a random and scattershot editor, and an obsessively cautious perfectionist. I'm also patient to the point I haven't been paid in seven weeks. I was protective and cautious here, but I'm sure you would be too if you'd sorted, written and rewritten six different versions of the Rigel system. :-o ::Then I really do apologise for bringing that thing up then. Whatever sparked it was before my time or outside my area. But I was reminded of it and looked it up to get some kind of handle on this conflict. The statements in the second-last paragraphs gelled with the impression I was getting here and now. Clearly, I wasn't only one to feel aggrieved. ::Maybe we're just completely misunderstanding each other. By all means, let us debate issues of articles, but let's not let it grow into arguments. -- BadCatMan 02:47, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :I think we just have a misunderstanding here. I didn't expect you to be online writing a response, and I was rushing to make the Pi3/O-system article the simplest and most literal interpretation so that we could evaluate the bits that weren't tidy in the conglomerated article, and piece them out to a more logical flow between the handful of topics that are conglomerated together (perhaps the way it was originally, it was more of an "Orion origins" article, not "system" or "(planet)"). I didn't appreciate the suggestion that I should have had to wait for a response to the attention tag before doing so either, as I was hoping that, by creating the simplified literal interpretation, it would give you clear way to expand upon it. :Saying that I was in the wrong by doing so definitely killed my buzz and made me feel like you were being defensive of the pet project - that's why i overexplained the points needing correction. Sorry if it seemed like I was harping or condescending, but saying that i should have waited for discussion before correcting an obvious inefficiency still seems backwards to me. Articles are open to be edited, especially when there was a clear course to be taken where a title didn't match the associated content. :Now that we've slowed it down, we can examine: i found that the Star Charts "Orion system" had zero references saying "here is the homeworld star system of that species" - it seems more to me like it was named on the map with that intention in mind, but no other licensee ever followed through - making it an evolutionary dead end towards researching the species. You pointed out that some licensees say 'their origins are ambiguous' and there is the strong suggestion that Rigel is the home system. In my eyes, this freed up the name "Orion system" - since the "Orion home system" was, at least in one valid source, Rigel, and not at all named "Orion system". Orion topics :I locked it as is because I don't feel we had a chance to fully examine what i just hashed out in the previous paragraph when you started bulking up the 'system' article. Now we have the three topics (Orion system, which is Pi-3... as well as Orion home system and Orion (planet)) ... I suggest we go reference by reference and figure out all the "on Orion" and "at Orion" references and see if we can make these work and decide the final use of each name based on the final result of sorting the references. Maybe the "on Orion"/"at Orion" occurrences will all seem ambiguous enough to make us try the Orion origin route and have an article that does have the conglomeration of "we're not sure where this all is". I do feel strongly though that, unless we have a solid reference to their home system being strictly called "the Orion system" (as opposed to "the Orions' system", etc.) -- unless we find this, that we keep the "Orion system" reference to the Orion system from star charts. If we find a reference that there is an "Orion system" that -isn't- Pi-3, then we should get on disambiguating, according to whatever differentiateion we can find to add to the name. -- Captain MKB 03:11, February 16, 2012 (UTC) ::Sorry, I wanted to divide them up and show you a tidier version, but didn't have a better place to put the information than on its existing page. Okay, I'm picking out a few references back on Talk:Orion system that we can go over piece by piece. -- BadCatMan 03:41, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :From the non-Orion species aspect of Orion, I think I have gotten through all the Orion sector planets, and am going to populate the systems as well. In larger astronomical expansion, i think orion constellation is pretty well fleshed out, but the bit about the atypical Orion Arm might do better merged into Orion Arm's article. -- Captain MKB 03:49, February 16, 2012 (UTC) ::I almost put in on Orion Arm, even began writing it there, but decided that Orion constellation was the better home for it, since it pertained directly to the constellation. I thought I'd made it pretty clear, even came up with a real-world match. Is more explanation needed or would it be better on a disambiguation page? -- BadCatMan 04:10, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :I think we have a case of a stronger real-world association present. If you map out the galaxy, the larger Orion Arm structure does contain within it the general expanse of the Orion constellation -- and therefore contains the smaller Orion Arm. -- Captain MKB 04:19, February 16, 2012 (UTC) ::And the Sol system contains Earth, but we wouldn't merge them (no, we've been through that). The galactic Orion Arm also contains Sol, and by extension and most maps, the whole Federation. Which is very strange when the Federation was once willing to let the Klingons have the whole Orion Arm, and the Federation's Rigel Demilitarized Zone Commission considered "making the entire Orion Arm a demilitarized zone under the authority of the Orions". That's a very odd conclusion. ::The description given closely matches that of aspects of the real-world Orion constellation: hot suns, ionized hydrogen gas clouds. This constellation Orion Arm is clearly an entirely different structure, in size, position, and make up, unrelated to the galactic Orion Arm bar simple galactic geography. ::I think the FASA authors simply confused the Orion constellation with the Orion Arm. They may be utterly mistaken on astronomy, but their error produced its own solution here. -- BadCatMan 06:21, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :::The Sol analogy doesn't quite work. Earth has some well defined boundaries, but everyone recognizes it is part of the Sol system anyway. The boundary definition presents cause to create a separate article, and the sources clarify which one is part of the larger other. :::I'm not quite sure that the current consition is even permissable - simply in terms of naming conventions. to continue using analogy, you're taking an article about zucchini and putting it into an article about jumbo summer squash because you personally find the similarity appealing. The equation of the mini Arm with the constellation is pure speculation - no source clarifies this. And an interested reader who reads about the mini Arm will type in the name "Orion Arm" anyway when linking. To take the Sol analogy further, this is like taking information about "Sol's inner planets" and putting it into Sector 001 and deleting it from Sol system. My main concern is that you've gone ahead and speculated too much with this link between the Arm and the constellation, and are burying the information in a place where it is not useful to the wiki. It's a bit much to just arbitrarily "decide" that they must have meant something else, and use your own name for something, disregarding the valid sources. I think the merge will be satisfactory to explain the difference anyway. -- Captain MKB 23:12, February 16, 2012 (UTC) ::::Mike, you're doing it again making early, unilateral decisions about something you're mistaken. :( And, yes, I'm annoyed. Remember what you said about being wrong on the khesterex? Please thoroughly read what the galactic Orion Arm is, what the Orion constellation is, both here and on Wikipedia, and read what I wrote about the constellation Orion Arm. This isn't speculation, this is astronomical fact. -- BadCatMan 23:30, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :::... Astronomical fact that isn't borne out by the source - all the sources agree that it is called the Orion Arm and the explanation you wrote works just as well in the new location. :::I've not only read what you recommended me to read, I've been reading it for years. You are absolutely right, there is good reason to believe they are referrring to that area of space. :::This isn't a unilateral decision, it is an application of policy. Our naming conventions aren't super complicated, and they give us a fair bit of leeway, but you've gone beyond what can realistically be expected to be valid here. This mini-Orion Arm is probably part of the Orion constellation, but taking one thing and shoehorning it into an article about another thing we think is related is not what we're doing here. Perhaps it even deserves a third article of its own. :::Maybe you should cool off, stop responding to me when you are annoyed, because it is abrasive to me personally to have you blaming me because you are annoyed that you can't make up your own way of doing things. This isn't personal to me or you, it's how things work here. -- Captain MKB 23:43, February 16, 2012 (UTC) ::::I did suggest making a third article for it. Which you ignored. ::::I've tried to be reasonable and patient, but you continue to be difficult and provoking. You seize the wrong side of a problem to make a big stink about, and it's starting to looking like a vendetta against me. I no longer have confidence in you as chief editor (or whatever it is) and would like a third party to examine these issues. -- BadCatMan 23:55, February 16, 2012 (UTC) :A third party? Bud, you can get a third party to look at these articles any time. They each have talk pages, which you are free to post on. Right now, you're posting on my personal talk page. Who did you expect to answer posting on my talk page? Every other admin has a talk page, your fellow editors have talk pages of their own, articles have talk pages. You chose to come here, post at me = you get me. :I'm not chief anything. Your really do need to cool down - I don't find it "reasonable or patient" to be posting nasty little barbs like this on my talk page. :Really now? Amazing, I thought that you had "seized the wrong side of the problem" ... ;) -- by making such a wrong move as moving all the info about "Yellow Peaches" and moving it to "Yellow Squash" because you thought one might be able to fit inside the other. Take a second and look at it that way. It's a complete non-sequitur no matter how many astronomy books you want to find to explain it. It's a stretch. :I'm not disagreeing to invalidate your supposition, but at the same time, it's not the only possible answer. It bears repeating and it makes sense, you've written a note and I find that to be a superior piece of information - good job. But changing out the article's title to something not 100% proven to be related is just not happening, from a standpoint of policy that kind of requires we use the real name in the source, not the thing we've concocted to replace it. :Regardless, I missed your suggestion about the third name. "TLDR", as they say - it's a bit difficult to find the good info here with all the "you're difficult and provoking and you make me annoyed" type comments. I apologize, of course - We're here on my personal talk page, so I'm focused on all the personal notes you've left about how sad you are that your view on this doesn't conform to the standard operating procedure of how to name things on the wiki, and how I'm not doing it right by correcting such non-sequiturs. :I support moving the information to a third article, I find it to be a great solution. Good job. -- Captain MKB 00:14, February 17, 2012 (UTC)